cigchat_flow_delete_user_field_by_name

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and handles it well. It explicitly flags the operation as DESTRUCTIVE and irreversible, requires a vulnerable scope, and discloses the two-step confirmation flow. This gives the agent essential safety information beyond what the schema provides.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It packs in the destructive nature, the confirmation workflow, and scope requirement without unnecessary verbosity. Every clause adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description communicates the critical workflow: destructive irreversible operation, mandatory two-step confirmation, and required scope. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and handle the safety mechanism. No essential context is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50%. The optional `confirm` parameter is well explained in the schema, and the description adds meaningful context about the confirmation token and impact statement. The required `name` parameter lacks explicit schema description, but the tool name and description make its meaning clear. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The tool name and description combine to clearly state the action: 'Delete user field by name'. The endpoint is included, which reinforces specificity. This distinguishes it from siblings like cigchat_flow_delete_user_field, which likely operate by ID rather than by name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear procedural guidance: call once without `confirm` to get an impact statement, then pass the confirmation token after human approval. It also states the required 'Manage Flow' scope. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., using `cigchat_flow_delete_user_field` when an ID is available), so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.